As a Lawyer, You Sent the Judge In?

Chapter 373 Confirmed dereliction of duty! refute? Presiding Judge: Rejected!

Wang Lixuan, the public prosecutor, strongly disagreed with Zhang Liang's statement.

 Because the prosecutor's submission for public prosecution and transfer to the court for trial must have a factual basis.

Withdraw the lawsuit?

Witnesses, oral confessions and related indirect evidence are available.

Why did they withdraw the lawsuit?

 Just relying on a piece of non-intuitive evidence, it is impossible to determine dereliction of duty? !

 Besides, Zhang Liang’s statement just now was entirely based on Xu Xingwang’s ignorance of the law.

Xu Xingwang may have had some logical loopholes in his presentation, and Zhang Liang caught him.

Based on this point, Zhang Liang made a strong rebuttal.

 But what about actually?

 In fact, it is difficult to say whether Zhang Liang’s rebuttal points can be recognized by the collegial panel.

 Indeed, according to general logic, there will definitely be no direct evidence left for illegal acts such as forced confessions.

 The confession of the party concerned is difficult to be recognized without verification by direct evidence or other evidence.

 But without direct evidence, can’t it be judged as malfeasance?

 It’s not!

Whether it was Zhang Liang's rebuttal that Wang Fang was not derelict in his duties, or something else.

As for the application to withdraw the case again, Wang Lixuan, as the public prosecutor, refuted:

“The defendant asked his lawyer not to file another request for the prosecution to withdraw the case.”

“Do you have any basis for requesting the prosecutor to withdraw the case?”

“Or do you think there is anything the prosecutor needs to avoid in this trial?”

“It’s just that you feel that the evidence cannot convict Wang Fang, so you kept asking the prosecutor to withdraw the case during the trial. What is your legal basis?”

 “Presiding Judge.”

“The defendant entrusted a lawyer to request the prosecutor to withdraw the case many times in court without any legal basis.”

“We apply to warn the defendant’s lawyer.”

On the bench, Li Qingyuan, as the presiding judge, heard the prosecutor's words.

 Looked at Zhang Liang.

 Bang the gavel.

 “The public prosecutor’s application is approved.”

“Penalty is imposed in court in accordance with the evidence, and the transfer of proceedings by the prosecutor to court is legal and legal.”

“The defendant entrusted a lawyer to ask the prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution. There is no legal basis or legal facts. Now he will give you a warning and reminder.”

 “If it happens again, I will be kicked out of the court!”

This reminder has already stated the presiding judge’s point of view.

 In this case, even the lawyer appointed by the defendant believed that the evidence was insufficient to prosecute.

 So whether it is a verdict of guilty or not guilty, it needs to be decided by the court.

 Zhang Liang repeatedly asked the prosecutor to withdraw the case, which was seriously inconsistent with the relevant procedures.

Li Qingyuan, as the presiding judge, also understands Zhang Liang’s mentality.

 At the same time, he also knew that this was a public trial, and Zhang Liang mainly wanted to restore Wang Fang's image.

However, what damaged Wang Fang’s image was the prosecutor’s image.

 Did Wang Fang really derelict in his duties?

 Of course!

This kind of behavior is not allowed.

 So after the prosecutor applied for a warning, they immediately agreed to the application.

Zhang Liang also understood that the purpose of the presiding judge’s reminder this time was to be repeated again and again, not again.

 Since a warning has been given, it cannot continue.

 The trial continues.

 At the trial table, Li Qingyuan sorted out the current defense progress.

 At present, the main statement of the defendant is that there is no direct evidence to prove that Wang Fang forced others to confess.

 The direct evidence Zhang Liang mentioned here is objective facts.

For example: Can Xu Xingwang produce evidence of injuries to prove Wang Fang’s beating, coercion, etc.?

  Or, are there any videos or photos to prove Wang Fang’s persecution?

 These two points obviously do not exist.

 After all, no one will leave evidence when they clearly know that they are committing illegal acts.

 Then such direct evidence is lacking.

 Can we still prove Wang Fang’s dereliction of duty?

 This point depends on the responses of each party.

 The gavel struck.

Li Qingyuan summarized the current defense:

“In this case, whether Wang Fang committed malfeasance due to abuse of power.”

“The court now makes the following conclusion.”

“The defendant believes that there is lack of direct evidence to accuse Wang Fang.”

“The testimony of the victim witness is not supported by objective factual basis.”

“Does the prosecutor and prosecution have anything else to say on this point?”

"some."

Wang Lixuan immediately spoke: "In addition to the victim's witness testimony, there is also proof of direct witnessing by his former colleagues."

 “This point has been stated in detail.”

 Complementary to Wang Lixuan's opening.

Su Bai also took this opportunity to add something. After raising his hand, he got the approval of the presiding judge.

Su Bai added: "The chief judge."

“When the lawyer appointed by the defendant said there was no direct evidence, he meant that there were no objective facts.”

“That is, evidence that can prove at a glance that Wang Fang has committed coercive behavior.”

“But in this case, Wang Fang has a complete chain of criminal evidence.”

 Chain of evidence?

 Zhang Liang frowned slightly and listened to Su Bai continue to speak:

 “In this case.”

“According to the confessions of the victim and Wang Fang’s colleagues, it can be confirmed that Wang Fang engaged in coercive behavior.”

“And Wang Fang’s criminal motive is also very sufficient. Because he has a strong performance in meritorious service, he used illegal means.”

 “Again, on the other hand, according to the specific manifestations of this case.”

"Xu Xingwang is not a criminal, so how did he know the specific details and process of the crime?" "And how did he describe the specific robbery and murder scene?"

“Xu Xingwang’s description is almost consistent with the reasoning and judgment made by the law enforcement authorities at the time.”

 “How is this confirmed?”

“So based on this argument, combined with the victim’s confession and the testimony of his colleagues, Wang Fang’s dereliction of duty can be judged.”

Facing Su Bai’s statement, Zhang Liang immediately refuted:

“But we have made it clear just now.”

“The verdict that Xu Xingwang was innocent was based on insufficient evidence and was not based on the absence of criminal circumstances.”

“It is a reversal of the verdict based on insufficient evidence as the main key point.”

Su Bai: "?"

“The defendant’s appointment of a lawyer means that although we are found innocent, it cannot prove that we have not committed a crime and are not suspected of committing a crime, right?”

 Zhang Liang: “Yes.”

Su Bai: “.….”

Since the verdict is not guilty, it means that there is no crime.

 Now the original court's judgment has been denied in this case, which is not legally recognized.

“The High Court has overturned the verdict and confirmed that we have no criminal facts. The lawyer appointed by the defendant also stated that we were released due to insufficient evidence.”

“Although it was not proven during this process that illegal procedures were used when we were interrogated.”

“But since we are found not guilty, according to the legal definition, we did not participate in this home invasion, robbery and murder.”

“Is this statement made by the lawyer appointed by the defendant a denial of the High Court’s judgment?”

“According to the lack of evidence stated by the lawyer entrusted by the defendant, and our failure to participate in the burglary and murder, is there a criminal causal relationship?”

 “There is a criminal causal relationship at this point.”

“So from this perspective, what does the defendant mean by entrusting a lawyer?”

 Zhang Liang: “We are not denying the High Court’s judgment, but we are just asking whether there is a possibility that Xu Xingwang was responsible for this case.”

“But due to the lack of major key evidence, he was acquitted.”

“Leading to the conclusion that his confession was consistent with the law enforcement investigation.”

Hearing this, Su Bai smiled and retorted:

“Then do you have any evidence to prove that Xu Xingwang committed a crime and was acquitted, which led to the same result between his confession and the investigation by law enforcement agencies?”

“At the trial, you accused us of having this logical possibility to determine that we had this fact.”

 “Where is the basis?”

“Or do you think there is such a logical possibility that the High Court did not think of when it made the sentence?”

 Generally speaking, reversal of a case is considered from multiple angles.

 There are many things to consider.

 The possibility Zhang Liang mentioned does not mean that it almost does not exist, but that there is no possibility of it existing.

 Why do you say that?

 Because there are many factors that need to be considered when deciding to overturn a verdict, and statutory scenarios also need to be taken into consideration.

The High Court overturned the verdict and determined that Xu Xingwang’s case was unjust, false, and wrongly convicted.

Then it has been confirmed that Xu Xingwang did not break into the house, rob or kill!

There was no home invasion, robbery or murder, so where did the details of the crime come from?

 How did the judicial statement submitted come from?

 Is there any doubt about this?

From this combined with the oral confession, it is basically possible to determine Wang Fang’s dereliction of duty.

Zhang Liang wanted to continue to refute, but at this time he was interrupted by the presiding judge Li Qingyuan.

“The defendant entrusted his lawyer to temporarily suspend his rebuttal.”

“Now let me ask you, the lawyer appointed by the defendant, did you have any evidence when you stated this just now?”

 “Or according to which legal provisions?”

 Zhang Liang replied: "Presiding judge, my statement just now just shows that there is such a possibility."

“To refute the statement made by the accuser’s lawyer just now.”

“Okay, so what you are saying now is that there is no evidence to prove the content of your statement just now, right?”

"Yes."

Hearing Zhang Liang’s answer, Li Qingyuan lowered his head and looked at the materials in front of him, then raised his head and said:

“The statement made by the defendant’s lawyer just now is now rejected.”

“The reason is that the statement made by the defendant’s lawyer is not supported by relevant evidence, while the statement made by the prosecutor’s lawyer is based on the result of the sentence.”

“This challenge is not supported from a statutory perspective.”

“Does the lawyer appointed by the defendant have any opinions on this?”

"No."

 Having been dismissed, Zhang Liang shook his head and did not continue to state.

 In fact, he also knew that it was not easy to defend from this perspective and win the approval of the presiding judge.

  It’s also easy to refute.

  But in this case, I want to fight for the rights and interests of my client.

Then you must give it a try.

 But now that it has been rejected, it has already expressed the opinion of the presiding judge.

 He has no legal basis or factual basis, so he can only accept the opinion of the presiding judge.

 And the other side.

 At the trial bench, Li Qingyuan once again summarized the existing defense.

 According to Su Bai’s point of view—indirect evidence has confirmed the authenticity of the confession.

Why do you say that?

Because Xu Xingwang was not the criminal, how could he describe all the crime processes and the facts of the crime in detail?

 This is basically an impossible situation.

 So from this point of view, it can be proved that the authenticity of Xu Xingwang’s oral confession is true.

 Coupled with the confessions of Wang Fang and other colleagues, in this case.

 Wang Fang’s judgment has become very clear.

 Is there any malfeasance?

 It must exist!

.

 ….

 PS: Please give me a monthly ticket~

 (End of this chapter)